Arranging Job For Accused Does Not Amount To Harbouring Him In Absence Of Evidence: Madras High Court Quashes NDPS Case Against Man

The Madras High Court recently quashed a criminal case registered against a man under the NDPS Act, holding that in absence of evidence other than confession of co-accused, the fact that the man had arranged a job for the co-accused would not amount to harbouring the latter.Justice P. Dhanabal reiterated that a confession statement of the co-accused by itself could not be a reason for implicating a person in a crime unless there were other materials to connect him in the crime. In the present case also, the court noted that except the statement of the co-accused, there was no other material to implicate him the crime. “On careful perusal of the above said judgements it is clear that in the absence of any other materials on records to connect the accused with the crime, the confession statement of the co-accused by itself cannot be the reason for his implication in the crime. In the case on hand also except the confession statement of co- accused that too before the police which is inadmissible in evidence and no other materials to implicate the petitioner in this crime,” the court said. The court also noted that though the petitioner had arranged a job for one of the accused, there was nothing to show that the petitioner had any knowledge about the involvement of accused in the NDPS case. The main accusation against the petitioner was that he harboured Accused No. 3 (A3) knowing that A3 was involved in a drugs case. The prosecution had relied upon A3's confession statement and impleaded the petitioner as one of the accused. “In this case except the confession statement of A3, no other evidence collected by the investigation agency. Even according to the confession of A3, the petitioner/A7 arranged job for A3 at Tirupur and the same will not amount to harbouring the accused, there is no piece of evidence that the petitioner had knowledge about the involvement of the A3 in the kanja case. Only because for arranging job to A3 at Tirupur the petitioner cannot be roped in this case as an accused under Section 27(A) of NDPS Act.The investigation officer (did) not even examined any person where the A3 was working at Tirupur to implicate the petitioner as one of the accused. Except the confession statement of A3 no other witnesses were examined by the prosecution, therefore without any materials the petitioner cannot face the ordeal of trial,” the court held. The court was hearing a petition filed by Karthick. The prosecution's case was that Karthick, along with other accused persons, was found to have indulged in selling of Kanja. The other accused were caught red-handed and based on the confession of the co-accused, Karthick was arrayed as an accused for harbouring the accused and was charged with offences under Sections 8(c), 20 (b)(ii)(c), 25, 27A, and 29(1) of the NDPS Act along with Section 120B of the IPC. Karthick argued that the police had found a four wheeler belonging to one of the accused with 105kgs of Kanja while an attempt was made to transport it to Srilanka. During the process, three accused escaped and ran away and another accused picked them up in a car. Since Karthick hekped to arrange a job for one of the accused who fled, a case was registered against him. Karthick argued that he had no knowledge of the incident and except the confession of the accused, there was no material to show that he was involved in harbouring the accused. The State, on the other hand, argued that the accused was Karthick's brother-in-law and Karthick had helped him get a job after being informed about his involvement in the transportation of Kanja. Thus, the state argued that he had committed the offence and had to face trial. The court was not inclined to accept the argument. The court noted that it was settled law that only based on the confession statement of co-accused and without any material to implicate the accused, no charges could be framed. The court also noted that the investigating officer had not even examined any person working with the accused to implicate the petitioner as an accused. Thus, noting that the petitioner could not be made to face trial in the absence of materials, the court allowed the plea and quashed the case against him. Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. G. Karuppasamy Pandian Counsel for Respondents: Mr. M. Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate(Crl.Side) Case Title: B Karthick v. The Inspector of Police Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 132 Case No: Crl. O. P.(MD)No.22599 of 2024Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment

Arranging Job For Accused Does Not Amount To Harbouring Him In Absence Of Evidence: Madras High Court Quashes NDPS Case Against Man

Upasana Sajeev

Tags